VMware Tuesday announced the latest update to its Fusion virtualization software, with a new version optimized for Snow Leopard and sporting full support for Windows 7, including Aero.

Oct. 27 is the worldwide launch date for VMware Fusion 3, now available for pre-order. VMware has said that the latest version will include more than 50 new features and enhancements, including greater support for graphics-intensive games in Windows.

"For more than 10 years, VMware virtualization has given users the choice of where to run their favorite applications. We're excited about the rapid adoption of VMware Fusion in the Mac community since its introduction just over two years ago, making it the No. 1 choice to run Windows on a Mac," said Jocelyn Goldfein, vice president and general manager, desktop business unit. "VMware Fusion 3 builds on our proven platform and makes it even easier for users to run Windows applications on the Mac."

VMware Fusion 3 has been optimized for Snow Leopard and takes advantage of the 64-bit architecture in Mac OS X 10.6. The new version will have a new 64-bit core engine to allow the "ultimate Windows 7 experience," offering Windows Aero and Flip 3D.

In addition, 3D graphics support will extend to OpenGL 2.1 and DirectX 9.0c Shader Model 3. Gamers will be able to run their favorite titles through Fusion 3 without rebooting.

The company has also touted that Fusion 3 will make it easier for users to migrate from PC to Mac, either wirelessly or with an ethernet cable.

"VMware Fusion has been designed from the beginning to make it easy to run Windows apps like Mac apps," the company said on its official blog. "VMware Fusion 3 makes it even better with the 'Always On' Applications Menu that banishes the Windows Start menu from your Mac and let’s you find and launch Windows apps like Mac apps, even when VMware Fusion is not running. Cycle through open Windows apps with 'command', quit individual Windows applications with 'command q', and use Dock Exposé with Windows apps."

VMware Fusion 3 has a retail price of $79.99 and will be available on Tuesday, Oct. 27. Those upgrading from previous versions of the application can do so at the discounted price of $39.99. Those who bought version 2 from Oct. 1, 2009 through the end of November will qualify for a free downloadable upgrade after filling out an online form and providing proof of purchase.

I've been in the Beta program and running the Version 3 Release Candidate for some time. Up until now I haven't been able to say anything under NDA. Now I can, and one word can sums this up: "Spectacular".

It's just like running Boot Camp in Snow Leopard - the speed, full Aero implementation.....it just blows version 2 and the competition away.

I've been in the Beta program and running the Version 3 Release Candidate for some time. Up until now I haven't been able to say anything under NDA. Now I can, and one word can sums this up: "Spectacular".

It's just like running Boot Camp in Snow Leopard - the speed, full Aero implementation.....it just blows version 2 and the competition away.

That's great news - even better than Vmware's press release - I quite like Fusion but it does have it's issues (especially when hard drive space gets a bit low). Still this sounds great - I cannot wait.

I've been in the Beta program and running the Version 3 Release Candidate for some time. Up until now I haven't been able to say anything under NDA. Now I can, and one word can sums this up: "Spectacular".

It's just like running Boot Camp in Snow Leopard - the speed, full Aero implementation.....it just blows version 2 and the competition away.

Interesting. I have been suing Parallels for some time because I had heard that it was best, but I have had multiple problems with it using my boot camp partition. In particular it has caused me to have to call Microsoft to re-authenticate several times. Maybe I will switch.

Interesting. I have been suing Parallels for some time because I had heard that it was best, but I have had multiple problems with it using my boot camp partition. In particular it has caused me to have to call Microsoft to re-authenticate several times. Maybe I will switch.

Sure Parallels may be buggy in some instances - but to sue them over it seems harsh

I've been in the Beta program and running the Version 3 Release Candidate for some time. Up until now I haven't been able to say anything under NDA. Now I can, and one word can sums this up: "Spectacular".

It's just like running Boot Camp in Snow Leopard - the speed, full Aero implementation.....it just blows version 2 and the competition away.

I don't care about Aero I need da speed. Fusion 2.0.x is much better and more stable, I switched over from Parallels several months ago and haven't looked back.

I wouldn't mind a bit of gaming on Fusion 3 but right now I just need Windows for browser testing - I have to use XP, since Windows Vista/7 won't let you run IE6 with that "multiple-ie" program.

Let's see the speed, smoothness and stability. And yeah let's hope it won't get bogged down with feature creep.

64bit Fusion will be nice. But I will be running XP2 mostly still. Because idiots still use IE6.

BTW I've been gaming and browsing web on Windows 7 on my gaming PC... No way in hell I will go back to Vista.

I'm just wondering how it can let you access and run Windows apps without having Fusion loaded.

I think that must mean "pre-loaded". Obviously you can't run Windows apps with Fusion (or any other VM software) without running it. It probably just means that ".exe" files are set to open with Fusion, which then understands to launch the .exe when it finishes loading. I don't think there is anything miraculous going on here.

For those more educated than me in virtualising software, which one is to buy? I have not really looked in to either one, but always having to boot up in Boot Camp is starting to get annoying....So is either one of them an option, and if yes then which one?

why pay when you can use virtualbox which works just as well and costs nothing?

I'm a fan of VirtualBox, too, but it looks like Fusion has significantly more support for 64-bit, hardware acceleration, integration, and migration. Definitely try VirtualBox as it's free and does the basic "I need to run an old Windows IE browser to check my website" task. But that doesn't mean you don't get what you pay for with VMWare.

To the person who was a Fusion 3 beta tester: Is the difference between running games on Boot Camp and Fusion 3 noticeable? I use Windows just to play my games, and it would be nice if I could buy Fusion since I don't like splitting my HD in 2 parts...

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

why pay when you can use virtualbox which works just as well and costs nothing?

I am a web developer who uses virtualization for testing, some time ago I worked for a company that would not buy me any virtualization software and I used Virtual Box instead...my experience with it was not at all good. The two particular gripes that come to mind are that it crashed regularly and I couldn't drag and drop things from one system to the other. That being said, it was some time ago and maybe it has gotten better, not to mention Parallells isn't exactly bug free either.

For those more educated than me in virtualising software, which one is to buy? I have not really looked in to either one, but always having to boot up in Boot Camp is starting to get annoying....So is either one of them an option, and if yes then which one?

Thanks!!

My own personal experience? I use my MPB 17 C2D at home to write iPhone apps, and at my "day job" under XP2 Professional to access proprietary "windows only" apps. While I credit Parallels for the initial ability to use my Mac to run windows and OS X simultaneously, my Parallels experience was less than pleasant. Angry and frustrated, a friend suggested I try the VMware Fusion beta.

To my amazement, the VMware Fusion beta ran circles around the released version of Parallels, and without any of the annoying issues that Parallels had at the time. I even paid for Parallels "support" that was worthless. Although listening to a heavily accented support person grunt and groan through his scripted support script was somewhat amusing, nothing was fixed.

The final straw? When Parallels bombarded their users with offers for a "new and improved" version that was buggier than most betas. Then they had the nerve to fight me tooth and nail when I demanded a refund, which was never granted until I got my bank involved.

So my take?

VMware Fusion =
Parallels =

You choose.

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.

you can run OS X in vmware. you just have to do some hacking and maybe download a copy of BT

If they've fixed the noisy USB headset issue under Snow Leopard I'll consider it, but only if they issue a fix for the current version which exhibits this problem under 2.0.6.

I went with Fusion because Parallels chokes on IP Phone communications and I've been satisfied with Fusion running my work image full time (XP SP3). Version 3 sounds like it has some nice features but nothing compelling me to upgrade. If the upgrade price gets a bit more reasonable I'll consider it.

My own personal experience? I use my MPB 17 C2D at home to write iPhone apps, and at my "day job" under XP2 Professional to access proprietary "windows only" apps. While I credit Parallels for the initial ability to use my Mac to run windows and OS X simultaneously, my Parallels experience was less than pleasant. Angry and frustrated, a friend suggested I try the VMware Fusion beta.

To my amazement, the VMware Fusion beta ran circles around the released version of Parallels, and without any of the annoying issues that Parallels had at the time. I even paid for Parallels "support" that was worthless. Although listening to a heavily accented support person grunt and groan through his scripted support script was somewhat amusing, nothing was fixed.

The final straw? When Parallels bombarded their users with offers for a "new and improved" version that was buggier than most betas. Then they had the nerve to fight me tooth and nail when I demanded a refund, which was never granted until I got my bank involved.

So my take?

VMware Fusion =
Parallels =

You choose.

I can second this story with a similar experience. I was a happy Parallels user for verisons 2 & 3, when 4 came out I immediately upgraded based on past success with their product, boy was I soon disappointed. I gave them 6 months to fix the bugs and they never did. When they fought me for my refund I told them I paitently waited for you to fix your buggy software, if I would have known it wasn't going to be fixed earlier I would have asked for my money back sooner. Seems like i wasn't the only unsatisfied customer

--Dave

Just say no to MacMall. They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries. There are better retailers out there.

I've been using the beta for a while, and for those people who upgraded to Snow Leopard, this will definitely fix things. Performance definitely increased compared to 2.0.6 (which supposedly added Snow Leopard support). Aero is still a bit buggy in that it inverts colors every now and then.

I can second this story with a similar experience. I was a happy Parallels user for verisons 2 & 3, when 4 came out I immediately upgraded based on past success with their product, boy was I soon disappointed. I gave them 6 months to fix the bugs and they never did. When they fought me for my refund I told them I paitently waited for you to fix your buggy software, if I would have known it wasn't going to be fixed earlier I would have asked for my money back sooner. Seems like i wasn't the only unsatisfied customer

I have been a happy VMware Fusion user for the past 15 months. It's been a great piece of software for when I'm "forced" to use WinXP for our in-house development tools.

Fusion has been a pleasure to use under Leopard. Snow Leopard on the other hand has caused quite a few quirks to become known. So much in fact, that I have informed other users depending on Fusion to hold off upgrading to Snow Leopard until VMWare resolves the issues. They are nothing major and certainly not show-stoppers. But they are irritating when it pops up. Things like the mouse pointer not working or losing positions, slow refresh rates, etc.

Fusion recently released v2.0.6 to address these issues which after my testing, still is not as polished as it was under Leopard. So this release 3.0 is welcomed and I look forward to its release.

But Fusion is still the package I would pick over Parallels. That solution was painful.

VMware Fusion has always been better with Parallels Desktop, and Fusion v3 continues to be much better than Parallels v5. I've been using the beta of v3 for quite a while and was really quite impressed with some of the improvements made. Being able to run Windows 7 with Aero Glass enabled is quite nice.

I've been using the beta for a while, and for those people who upgraded to Snow Leopard, this will definitely fix things. Performance definitely increased compared to 2.0.6 (which supposedly added Snow Leopard support). Aero is still a bit buggy in that it inverts colors every now and then.

Can Aero be used with the Unity view? Glad to hear it will also fix the performance with Win 7!

Now all we need is the Windows version of Fusion to run OS X, so those of us that run 3ghz+ Quad Cores can use our favorite OS.

I have a Phenom II 955 system recently built that's condemmed to a life of running Windows.

The "Windows" version of Fusion is actually called VMware Workstation, and it's much more advanced than fusion.

However, the reason you can't virtualize Mac OS X easily is due to Apple's licensing. So, while it's possible to virtualize Mac OS X in Workstation, it's far more difficult than it is to virtualize Windows or Linux.

Of course, Windows really isn't that bad at all, so I wonder why you even bothered to build a system that's "condemned."

I can second this story with a similar experience. I was a happy Parallels user for verisons 2 & 3, when 4 came out I immediately upgraded based on past success with their product, boy was I soon disappointed. I gave them 6 months to fix the bugs and they never did. When they fought me for my refund I told them I paitently waited for you to fix your buggy software, if I would have known it wasn't going to be fixed earlier I would have asked for my money back sooner. Seems like i wasn't the only unsatisfied customer

--Dave

Cool! Thanks Justflybob and razorpit for your inputs, much appreciated!! I think i will go ahead and give VMware a try. Thanks one more time guys!

Does anyone know if Fusion 3 recognizes more than one NIC? I have been happily running Parallels for years (now on v4) because only Parallels was able to recognize the second NIC in my Mac Pro. Fusion was not able to see the second NIC, so it must share the same physical connection with the host Mac. I'd rather use Fusion if I could, since I have had some network directory browsing lag with Windows Explorer under Parallels but not with Fusion.

Why is this important? I run my mac environment off of one NIC and my virtual WinXP environment off the second NIC which is plugged into a separate secure network at work. VMware Fusion does not recognize the second NIC thus could not handle having my physical Mac and virtual machine accessing a different networks.

By the way, since the first network is a cable modem at work, I can now use BackToMyMac from my home cable connection to remote control my work computer, which then uses Parallels to access the internal network at work and gives me access to my files and work environment from home without exposing the internal network to the world. BTMM is encrypted by the Airport Extreme base stations.

I think that must mean "pre-loaded". Obviously you can't run Windows apps with Fusion (or any other VM software) without running it. It probably just means that ".exe" files are set to open with Fusion, which then understands to launch the .exe when it finishes loading. I don't think there is anything miraculous going on here.

(although, it could potentially open some interesting security holes)

There's a way... Aside from Cross-Over for Mac there are other open source ways to wrap a DOS or Windows application around it to run on a different OS.

I got Parallels years back-a small local company that fired back tech help in minutes. Last week the virus detection program eat my mouse. The Parallels CS team sent me some cryptic email that lead to a "ticket" that looked more like an F22 parts list, with no place to answer. Then today, some literal guru from Katmandu sent me an email telling how to "CLICK" on various control panels to get my mouse back! Thats like the cops telling my to drive my car down to the station to report it's theft! I had enough trouble with Microsoft and Western Digital with useless tek support and calls to Pakistani's who migrated to India. I have a Taraftar Sitar myself, but it was easier to order that than dealing with these frustrating bozos who are trained to lie and deflect better than the shields of the Enterprise! I so glad to call Austin when my mac has a software issue-and even thats not perfect!
Thank God I have a Windows programmer for a friend here in Oregon! I got my Windows 7 mouse back. (You can't just arrow key around W7 like a mac!) AAAARGHHH

The "always on" menu looks great, and the migration from a real PC. I have a real PC loaded with games sitting next to my Mac so it will be interesting to see how well this works (though I don't have unrealistic expectations in terms of 3d performance).

Of course, Windows really isn't that bad at all, so I wonder why you even bothered to build a system that's "condemned."

I understand the licensing issues, obviously. OS X virtualisation would be nice, but it's not going to happen anytime soon and that's kinda fine. Also, I could run Linux as someone else said, and while I was a fairly hardcore Linux freak from about 1994 to about 2000, for me it can't offer anything OS X or Windows can't between them.

Condemned is a little harsh, but this is an Apple forum afterall, so it's custmary to stick the boot in on Windows, given an opportunity. I'm running Win7 in 32-bit mode until it's released, then will install the 64-bit version... I have no real issues with Win7 aside from the seemingly endless updates, including driver updates that break things (RealTek Wifi drivers keep getting released and keep breaking my WiFi). Anyway, that's another thread...

I am a web developer who uses virtualization for testing, some time ago I worked for a company that would not buy me any virtualization software and I used Virtual Box instead...my experience with it was not at all good. The two particular gripes that come to mind are that it crashed regularly and I couldn't drag and drop things from one system to the other. That being said, it was some time ago and maybe it has gotten better, not to mention Parallells isn't exactly bug free either.

i've been using it for quite a while and do not suffer i cannot drag and drop things with the GUI however you can share folders, and that's awesome...

i cannot understand people wanting to use aero...is like wanting os x to have viruses

i've been using it for quite a while and do not suffer i cannot drag and drop things with the GUI however you can share folders, and that's awesome...

i cannot understand people wanting to use aero...is like wanting os x to have viruses

That statement doesn't make much sense. Aero just turns on some GUI features in the window manager to make some functions easier, or to turn on functions that aren't available in the basic window manager. Any modern graphics card will run Aero these days, including integrated graphics chipsets like those in the Mini. I don't understand how you equate that to wanting viruses in OS X. It's no different than Compiz under Linux in essence, if not presentation.

In any case, what I took from this is that VMWare 3 will have sufficient performance to actually enable those features under 3.0, where if memory serves, VMWare Fusion 2.x always ended up with a lowly '1' in graphics scores under Vista and Windows 7.